"wugi" wrote in message
...
|
| :
| The Measurement of Contraction
|
| The theory of relativity is presented as one that cannot be understood
| by most people.
|
| Unfortunately that is how it is often presented.
|
| This aura of complexity and difficulty is maintained
| by using ambiguity and vagueness in describing and defining the theory
|
| Quite true. I often wondered why they would present the theory in such
| a vague and confusing way, when it can be simply presented w/o
| vagueness and confusions. Rare are the SR books which are well
| presented.
|
| I have come to the conclusion that SR authors are either clueless
| about relativity and thus remain vague in its descriptions or that
| those authors are just really bad pedagogists.
|
| I am not saying that SR is wrong and I tend to say the opposite.
| But I do say that SR is badly represented or described. If relativity
| authors really wanted to, they can introduce SR
| in simple terms well accessible to highschool students. But then SR
| would loose all of its "mystery" and relativist would no longer be
| viewed as "brilliant".
|
| guido:
| Let's see if you don't find my approach perhaps less vague, clueless,
| confusing (if a bit messy, yes:-), mysterious:

There is no mystery to bull****.
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rt/tAB=tBA.gif

4 = 12 according to the cretin Einstein.